Hundreds support troops at Edmonton rally.

[bradco]

"1. Right. The national interests of the UNITED STATES were involved, and our membership in an alliance led us to assist them in protecting THEIR national interests. I'm okay with that, but that doesn't make it OUR national interests."

-Its in our national interest to follow through with our agreements otherwise we lose the guarantees that our allies would do the same. Membership in the alliance is in OUR national interest.

"2. The regime that threatened the national interests of our ally has been overthrown. Job well done. The rest of this 'mission' is a farce."

-This rests on the notion that allowing for Afghanistan to fall back inbto the same hands wont threaten the future security of our allies and ourselves. Our national interest is probably to ensure that a regime is put in place that will not harbour terrorists. Even if the terrorists dont plan to attack us specifically it does us no good, economically for example, to see a repeat of 9/11.

[betsy]

Well, one soldier spoke at the rally and said: HELP US HELP YOU!

[cybercoma]

Bosnia and Haiti aren't theocracies and there was a reaonable chance for success in our peace keeping missions there.

So it has nothing to do with the casualties and fatalities in Afghanistan, it has to do with what you perceive as having a reasonable chance for success and whether or not success means installing a government you agree with.

You see, freedom means the Afghanis are free to choose whichever government they want, and not be oppressed by the Taliban. As has been said to you several times before, there is a reasonable chance of success but it's not going to happen overnight. I'm sorry that's not good enough for your narrow view of how the situation should pan out, but the Afghanis are largely uneducated due to Taliban rule.

What will solve the situation and bring our troops home is a security force for Afghanistan made up of people from Afghanistan. Training them is going to take forever since they have pracitically no education.

That doesn't mean cut and run, that means we take the time to teach them and train them so they can secure their country themselves.

[scribblet]

For those who disagree with putting our troops in Afghanistan on the grounds that we are needlessly endangering their lives for no good reason, these people must surely disagree with every peace keeping mission that Canada is a part of, right???

Something I wondered about too, as Canadian forces are not strictly 'peacekeeping' they do use guns and bullets.

I don't understand why some people think it is fine for Canada to get involved with Darfur or Somalia as that would also be involvement with warring Muslim factions - we would be targets there and at home.

[White Doors]

For those who disagree with putting our troops in Afghanistan on the grounds that we are needlessly endangering their lives for no good reason, these people must surely disagree with every peace keeping mission that Canada is a part of, right???

Something I wondered about too, as Canadian forces are not strictly 'peacekeeping' they do use guns and bullets.

I don't understand why some people think it is fine for Canada to get involved with Darfur or Somalia as that would also be involvement with warring Muslim factions - we would be targets there and at home.

They say it's fine now, but it's not. If we did do those missions the same people would be out demonstrating. There is nothing to argue about here. Their minds are made up and that's it. I do wonder how they get over the part where the UN voted to do it. I mean, that is usually their battle cry. 'The UN didn't sanction this war'!! So you see, it doesn't matter. War is too 'tribal' for these people to care why it is being done. They are the west's weakness. They are as Stalin used to say, the West's 'useful idiots'

[normanchateau]

The current government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a theocracy which imposes death sentences on those who convert to Christianity.

It is not a theocracy. It is a democracy, though the rules of a heavily religious people are based largely on the Koran. However, the government intervened to prevent the one time sentence against the one offender found, from being carried out.

The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a democracy (like Iran) in that they have elections. It is a theocracy in that their constitution decrees that the Koran over-rides all other legislation, democratic or not.

The government intervened after extraordinary pressure from George Bush and other world leaders to have the Christian convert permanently exiled from Afghanistan or face death if he returns.

Sounds remarkably reminiscent of a theocracy.

[Army Guy]

My 2 cents worth have been told and retold here dozens of times by myself and other soldiers that have walked the same ground as i have. But i think needs to be retold some more.

There has been talk about supporting the mission and supporting the troops, that they are two separate issues. in this case they are not, i'll explain, this mission is 100 % supported by the troops, It's not vietnam...soldiers are not crying about coming home they are not divided on any of the issues that drive this War...We are in fact united and stand firmily behind our nations decission to send us here... Something that seems to get lost in the message or some Canadians just fail to hear so i'll say it again" We fully support this mission and firmily stand behind the decission to send us here" the mission is a Canadian one that stands behind everyone of our values and morals. It is an honourable one, worth the price we are paying to assist the AFGAN government.

Some will say it is our jobs to support the mission, it is our duty to show our support, to those i say you do not know soldiers very well, we are a very vocal lot, a couple of beers will prove that, soldiers will speak thier minds when asked, regardless of whom is doing the asking...Our loyality is to the Canadian people not to the present government...and today like yesterday we support this mission...And when the time comes we will say when we don't...

There are some who will chant "bring the troops home" to them i ask WHY ? most will answer it's an american war, or we are creating more terrorists, or it has nothing to do with Canada let them solve there own problems...the list go's on and on, there seems to be an excuse for everytime of day...

Canadians have forgotten that 9/11 took over 30 Canadian lives that day, a small number of those killed that day, but when you line up 30 bodies it will quickly put in perspective that terrorist act should have a bearing on how our nation reacts to such a crime.

It also brings this question up, "what missions do Canadians support" or "What is a Canadian misson"

it is my personal opinon that Canadians don't know what mission they support, or what mission is a Canadian mission... they quickly forget that it is thier military that they send on these fairy tales missions, Men and Women trained in the art of combat, not in the art of handing out candies or teddy bears but the art of taking lives of bad men and women of other nations.... Men and Women defaulted into the job because thier is nobody else in the government that wants it...

The soldiers side of the story, this is my 2 and tour in Afgan, i volunteered for both, why because despite what you read in the papers we are making a difference, things are changing for the better, we are making lives of Afganis better everyday we are here...it is a slow process but it is progress, I also seen the same progress in bosina as i was on the first Roto with the UN, and 2 with Nato, so i do know alittle of what i'm talking about. My first Roto in bosina , i showered with my flak jacket and my rifle hung on the soap rack inside the shower stall ... my last tour in Bosina i had the opurtunity to have a beer downtown in a local restaruant with no flak jacket, no rifle and we took a rental car...the only difference was 10 years of time...and many hours of hard labour done by troops of dozens of nations... So what does that prove, it proves it is possiable over time to achieve peace when enough force is applied, it also gives acredation to those that have been saying peace takes time.

So is it in Canada's national interest to be in Afgan, you tell me why it is not in our national interest to be here. keeping in mind they've brought this war to us, not the other way around, and our Nation finally stood up and said enough is enough, you've crossed the line and have taken the lives of the last innocent Canadian citizen..

Why should we do it. Because it is in our values and morals to help those in need, as we have done in most of our conflicts, in fact history will show us very little of our military history involves Canada defending our shores, from direct military action. But that does not take away from any of our accomplishments or deeds does it ?

In todays world sometimes we all need to stand up for what we believe in and sometimes those believes need to be backed up thru action.

[White Doors]

Good post.

thanks for sharing.

[Who's Doing What?]

Good post.

thanks for sharing.

Quite right.

Kick their butts Army Guy.

[Wilber]

I don't understand why some people think it is fine for Canada to get involved with Darfur or Somalia as that would also be involvement with warring Muslim factions - we would be targets there and at home.

Didn't the Sudanese government say not long ago that the presence of UN or NATO troops would be considered an act of war?

[Wilber]

Good post Army Guy. Unfortunately for some, what the troops think doesn't matter, Their mind is made up.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Support the troops! -- bring them home.

Why do you have such disdain for the innocent Afghanis who are relying on our troops?

My view is that as a Canadian my obligations are toward the noble men and women who signed up to defend this country. I think we should be more concerned with protecting their lives and limbs than with the impossible to resolve needs of remote foreigners.

(Sorry to Ricki Bubba if that doesn't sound reasonable to him, but his faculty of reason is demonstrably impaired anyway.)

Based on this logic I presume we should take the "peacekeepers" off of our money.

[Black Dog]

What is it about Afghanistan that turns the "hard headed realists" of the right into starry-eyed fantasists? I wonder how many here who are expressing such deep concern for the well-being of the Afghan people gave them a thought before 9-11? How many give a crap about the untold millions of others who suffer under the yolk of poverty and tyrrany. It's also kinda funny, given th enumber of anti-Mulsim threads, some of the same people who espouse nothing less than total war on all followers of Muhammad trip over themselves to pledge their undying affection for the Muslims of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is not Nazi Germany, but it's a nation of largely uneducated and oppressed people that need our help. So, the red-herring is not putting your logic to the test.

...

Forget the terrorists that have been disrupted and fled, forget the regime change, we're trying to put a country back together.

I'll tell you why its hopeless: Afghanistan has, for the better part of it's long history, been completely ungovernable. the biggest ethnic group in the country, the Pasthun, have consistently demonstrated their contempt for modernization and their love of war. The most extreme ideas of the Taliban came, not from the Quran, but were adapted from tribal traditions. If Afghanistan ever becomes a real democracy, life for most of its people will continue pretty much as it has for the past 1,000 years. And neithe rus, nt thenm, will be much the better for it.

Why should we do it. Because it is in our values and morals to help those in need, as we have done in most of our conflicts, in fact history will show us very little of our military history involves Canada defending our shores, from direct military action. But that does not take away from any of our accomplishments or deeds does it ?

In todays world sometimes we all need to stand up for what we believe in and sometimes those believes need to be backed up thru action.

Here's a queston: if not for 9-11, would you support a mission to Afghanistan? Anyone else?

[Army Guy]

Black Dog:

Black dog, The man of action, gentleman of leisure..i've been wondering when you were going to wiegh in on this topic. And i'm glad you did.

What is it about Afghanistan that turns the "hard headed realists" of the right into starry-eyed fantasists?

For me it was a 11 year old girl, whom had both hands cut off by the taliban for the crime of going to school, that and hundrds of conversations with afganis.

I wonder how many here who are expressing such deep concern for the well-being of the Afghan people gave them a thought before 9-11?

To be truthful never gave them a second thought, in fact had to go to the world map to even find out where Afgan was.. But that raises this question, once we destroyed the Al Quada and Taliban government were we just to leave or did we have the responsiablity to rebuild not only the government but infra structure that has been destroyed or was non existant.

I'll tell you why its hopeless: Afghanistan has, for the better part of it's long history, been completely ungovernable. the biggest ethnic group in the country, the Pasthun, have consistently demonstrated their contempt for modernization and their love of war. The most extreme ideas of the Taliban came, not from the Quran, but were adapted from tribal traditions. If Afghanistan ever becomes a real democracy, life for most of its people will continue pretty much as it has for the past 1,000 years. And neithe rus, nt thenm, will be much the better for it.

Yes, Afgan has a long history we all know that, But then again by the same logic do we use history to judge nations, Do we lock down France, Britain, Spain because of thier historical conquests...do we pour in more troops into Germany because of thier historical past...History is a good gage, but not the end all, there is nothing in history that says Afgan will never be a nation able to stand on it's own...unless you know something i don't.

Afgan does not need to become a democracy as we know it, for this mission to be declared sucessful, what it needs to become is a government that can govern it's own people be it by a combination of religous/ elected government officals or other forms of government. Life for many Afganis has already changed for the better, and has changed dramically for the good. And we are just starting the rebuilding process...

How could a people able to to run thier own country not be better for us...I know your not advocating leaving them in the dark ages for our bennifit.

Here's a queston: if not for 9-11, would you support a mission to Afghanistan? Anyone else?

9/11 is the main reason for the Afgan mission, but then again thru other discussions we've had i do believe that Canada could take a more active role in alot of areas in the world. And yes, Afgan is one of those areas..But Canadians barely have the stomach for this mission, they lack the patients to get the job done correctly, they lack the will to use force...But then again i see the world thru differnet lenses from a military view.

[Black Dog]

For me it was a 11 year old girl, whom had both hands cut off by the taliban for the crime of going to school, that and hundrds of conversations with afganis.

But what of the thousands of other girls just like her in othe rpart sof the world not lucky enough to be on the recieving end of our help? The same logic which justifies humanitarian intervention in Afghanistan compels us to intervene just about everywhere else. In fact, there's probably dozens of places where th epeople are worse off than the Afghan people were under the Taliban.

To be truthful never gave them a second thought, in fact had to go to the world map to even find out where Afgan was.. But that raises this question, once we destroyed the Al Quada and Taliban government were we just to leave or did we have the responsiablity to rebuild not only the government but infra structure that has been destroyed or was non existant.

Thanks for your honesty. And to be perfectly blunt, I'm not sure it was our responsibility to "fix" Afghanistan. If the mission was to scatter Al Qaeda and beat back the Taliban, then we could have left right away. You could argue that the current mission is just a continuation of that original, but the humanitarian stuff just seems like mission creep to me (which is why we're spending less and less time and money on such projects).

Yes, Afgan has a long history we all know that, But then again by the same logic do we use history to judge nations, Do we lock down France, Britain, Spain because of thier historical conquests...do we pour in more troops into Germany because of thier historical past...History is a good gage, but not the end all, there is nothing in history that says Afgan will never be a nation able to stand on it's own...unless you know something i don't.

I agree: past performance is no indicator of the future. But in this case I think it's a safe bet (safer than expecting Afghanistan to emerge as a stable, democratic state, anyway). I just don't see a lot of the ingredients for success there.

Afgan does not need to become a democracy as we know it, for this mission to be declared sucessful, what it needs to become is a government that can govern it's own people be it by a combination of religous/ elected government officals or other forms of government. Life for many Afgans has already changed for the better, and has changed dramically for the good. And we are just starting the rebuilding process...

First, I don't know if a central government of any kind can work in Afghanistan when local rule is usually along tribal lines.

How could a people able to to run thier own country not be better for us...I know your not advocating leaving them in the dark ages for our bennifit.

Here's the rub: suppose they want to be left in the dark ages? Suppose that the only form of government acceptable to Afghanistan is a fundamentalist conservative theocracy along thelines of the Taliban. If such a regime were to promise to not allow its territory to be used by terrorist groups, would we walk away? Because, let's face it: the well being of the average Afghan matters not a whit to Canada or the west. We took on the Taliban because they sheltered Al Qaeda, not because girls couldn't go to school.

9/11 is the main reason for the Afgan mission, but then again thru other discussions we've had i do believe that Canada could take a more active role in alot of areas in the world. And yes, Afgan is one of those areas..But Canadians barely have the stomach for this mission, they lack the patients to get the job done correctly, they lack the will to use force...But then again i see the world thru differnet lenses from a military view.

I appreciate your good intentions. Indeed, I commend them. But I'm not sure it's a practical approach.

[normanchateau]

Suppose that the only form of government acceptable to Afghanistan is a fundamentalist conservative theocracy along thelines of the Taliban. If such a regime were to promise to not allow its territory to be used by terrorist groups, would we walk away? Because, let's face it: the well being of the average Afghan matters not a whit to Canada or the west. We took on the Taliban because they sheltered Al Qaeda, not because girls couldn't go to school.

Forget the "Suppose..." The current government of Afghanistan is a fundamentalist conservative theocracy. It differs from the previous Taliban government in that it also includes drug dealers, warlords and corrupt government officials. But the powerful mullahs remain. Is this an improvement over the Taliban? Probably. Is it worth the sacrifice of Canadian lives. Probably not.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

But what of the thousands of other girls just like her in othe rpart sof the world not lucky enough to be on the recieving end of our help? The same logic which justifies humanitarian intervention in Afghanistan compels us to intervene just about everywhere else. In fact, there's probably dozens of places where th epeople are worse off than the Afghan people were under the Taliban.

Your piont is taken, i'm sure any little girl from numerous other nations could have ripped my heart out and had as much impact as this one had. But one can not always remain neutral as one would like...And your right but our current military and Canadian policitcal will limits us as a nation to what we respond to...And 9/11 pushed us to respond to Afgan, and we are here now, so why not stay and finish the job or stay until we know without a doubt that the mission can not be completed. So we are not second guessing down the road if we did the right thing.

Thanks for your honesty. And to be perfectly blunt, I'm not sure it was our responsibility to "fix" Afghanistan.

I don't agree, if we are to use our world postion to punish those for crimes again'st our nation, we should also use that responsiablity to atleast try and fix the problem...I mean we were all willing to jump on the band wagon and destroy the government that help al Quida thrive...why not use that same power to atleast try and ensure it does not happen again..no since throwing out the whole basket of fruit because of a few rotten pieces..

You could argue that the current mission is just a continuation of that original, but the humanitarian stuff just seems like mission creep to me (which is why we're spending less and less time and money on such projects).

Yes but todays warfare is growing, generals are now seeing that to have peace, as we know it, one has to spend more on humanitarian projects than the actual warfare portion...Not to bring Iraq into this, but had they spent as much time and money on rebuilding Iraq as they did destroying it I'm convinced they would not be such as mess as there is today.

And we as a nation have to see that as well that these missions are multi bil dollar investments, and should not be taken lightly, but the price tag should not deter us from our responsiablities as one of the leading nations in the west.

I agree: past performance is no indicator of the future. But in this case I think it's a safe bet (safer than expecting Afghanistan to emerge as a stable, democratic state, anyway). I just don't see a lot of the ingredients for success there.

Life itself is not a safe bet, nothing is garenteed,we as a nation have liked the long shots... people still buy lotto tickets, hoping to strike it rich. We accomplish nothing in the world by watching it go by, atleast here and now we are doing something we've all talked about, projecting Canadian values and morals ...doing something good atleast i hope it will turn out that way...but if not atleast we as a nation can say we tried...As for the ingredients i see them every day, i see the kids running screaming thier heads off waving as we drive by...i see them as the ingredients to a lasting peace...i see them as Afgans future...

Here's the rub: suppose they want to be left in the dark ages? Suppose that the only form of government acceptable to Afghanistan is a fundamentalist conservative theocracy along thelines of the Taliban. If such a regime were to promise to not allow its territory to be used by terrorist groups, would we walk away?

It's a very good question, Most of those afganis i've spoken to just want peace, to be able to raise there kids free from war, to feed and provide for them.... any father would tell you that....would they settle for the same taliban rule if it meant peace...for most i would say unlikely at this time but unless NATO makes some real progress within a few years i would say yes, they they would...

Because, let's face it: the well being of the average Afghan matters not a whit to Canada or the west. We took on the Taliban because they sheltered Al Qaeda, not because girls couldn't go to school.

I agree, and polls confirm this. The avg Canadian is quite happy with donating a few dollars to feed the worlds children and calling it a day. that does not make it right just shows us that perhaps we don't always live up to our morals and values we proclaim we have...

I appreciate your good intentions. Indeed, I commend them. But I'm not sure it's a practical approach.

Forgive me if i screw up this quote but someone said men and nations are not only judged by words but by thier deeds and actions...I'm still trying to figure the true meaning out myself but i'll try here...

I not a overly religious man, all though i have found myself making a few promises to god over here latetly...but i do believe we all are judged in some way be it by our peers, friends, family, our nation whom ever, which is important to me and my believes and i think my experiance over here has made me a better person, made me see things in a different light, nothing that gives me any zen powers or greater insight to the worlds problems but just seeing them in a different light...In afgan see hope, i see good people who want what we all want peace...and to achieve that they have asked for our help...unfortunatly the badmen don't want to give them that , they don't want to release control. Is there another way to achieve peace without first driving out those that want to control...

[Black Dog]

Your piont is taken, i'm sure any little girl from numerous other nations could have ripped my heart out and had as much impact as this one had. But one can not always remain neutral as one would like...And your right but our current military and Canadian policitcal will limits us as a nation to what we respond to...And 9/11 pushed us to respond to Afgan, and we are here now, so why not stay and finish the job or stay until we know without a doubt that the mission can not be completed. So we are not second guessing down the road if we did the right thing.

The problem is, with this mission, its nigh impossible to develop a quantifiable and acheivable standard of success. If this is a military mission, focus on beating the enemy. But let's not get into making promises we can't keep.

I don't agree, if we are to use our world postion to punish those for crimes again'st our nation, we should also use that responsiablity to atleast try and fix the problem...I mean we were all willing to jump on the band wagon and destroy the government that help al Quida thrive...why not use that same power to atleast try and ensure it does not happen again..no since throwing out the whole basket of fruit because of a few rotten pieces..

But the Taliban's attitudes towards women (for example) wasn't the problem. Giving Al Qaeda sanctuary was. Al Qaeda's operations in Afghanistan have since been disrupted and the Taliban scattered. Even if they were to come back and take over, there's no guarantee Al Qaeda would come with them. Heck: bringing the Taliban into the government could even be the best way to stabalize the country. The point is without a realistic benchmark, we could be there forever.

Yes but todays warfare is growing, generals are now seeing that to have peace, as we know it, one has to spend more on humanitarian projects than the actual warfare portion...Not to bring Iraq into this, but had they spent as much time and money on rebuilding Iraq as they did destroying it I'm convinced they would not be such as mess as there is today.

And we as a nation have to see that as well that these missions are multi bil dollar investments, and should not be taken lightly, but the price tag should not deter us from our responsiablities as one of the leading nations in the west.

I'm all for humanitarianism, but how far are we willing to go, how much blood and treasure are we willing to spend on a country whose main claim to fame (other than being a graveyard for well-intentioned foreigners) was playing a very indirect role in a single terror attack? Put another way: I don't se Afghanistan and the taliban posing much of a threat to our security.

Life itself is not a safe bet, nothing is garenteed,we as a nation have liked the long shots... people still buy lotto tickets, hoping to strike it rich. We accomplish nothing in the world by watching it go by, atleast here and now we are doing something we've all talked about, projecting Canadian values and morals ...doing something good atleast i hope it will turn out that way...but if not atleast we as a nation can say we tried...As for the ingredients i see them every day, i see the kids running screaming thier heads off waving as we drive by...i see them as the ingredients to a lasting peace...i see them as Afgans future...

I understand your personal stake and emotional involvement, but I'm trying to come at this as dispassionatly as I can, which, IMO, is the only way to appraoch questions of natonal interest and foreign policy. (BTW, I find the idea of "projecting Canadian values" to be a bit odd, given that if you asked a dozen Canadians to define "Canadian values" you'd end up with 12 diferent and contradictory examples!)

I agree, and polls confirm this. The avg Canadian is quite happy with donating a few dollars to feed the worlds children and calling it a day. that does not make it right just shows us that perhaps we don't always live up to our morals and values we proclaim we have...

I don't think the armed forces is the best way to deliver humanitarian services (though I acknowledge that Canadians are probably better at it than most).

[Army Guy]

Blackdog:

The problem is, with this mission, its nigh impossible to develop a quantifiable and acheivable standard of success. If this is a military mission, focus on beating the enemy. But let's not get into making promises we can't keep.

I don't see us making any promises we can't keep. This is not just a military mission as per say, but what they call full spectrum operations, one in which we are involved in combat operations, stability operations and humanitarian assistance, all at the same time sometimes in the same town or city...and we are making advances in all three areas but i want to stress it is not just the Canadian military here, we have diplomats, RCMP, and other government organizations here all working hard at making this work...

But the Taliban's attitudes towards women (for example) wasn't the problem. Giving Al Qaeda sanctuary was. Al Qaeda's operations in Afghanistan have since been disrupted and the Taliban scattered. Even if they were to come back and take over, there's no guarantee Al Qaeda would come with them. Heck: bringing the Taliban into the government could even be the best way to stabalize the country. The point is without a realistic benchmark, we could be there forever.

Your right, but it's a bad apple we want to throw out, while we are here. Al Qaeda operations may have been curtailed, but they are still alive and still a problem in Afgan...despite what the press puts out there we are still engaging Al Qaeda members... We do have a bench mark, it's to bring peace and stability to thier country and to assist them in the rebuilding process. how long that will take i have no idea, how long were we in Cyprus, bosina, more than 10 years minimum...

I'm all for humanitarianism, but how far are we willing to go, how much blood and treasure are we willing to spend on a country whose main claim to fame (other than being a graveyard for well-intentioned foreigners) was playing a very indirect role in a single terror attack? Put another way: I don't se Afghanistan and the taliban posing much of a threat to our security.

Let me ask you the same question, how much is your freedom and your rights worth to you...and how much would you allow your government to spend on keeping them....How much of our current surplus would you allow our government to grant Afgan this gift...

Again we are asking what does afgan have to offer in return...does there have to be a return before we decide to take action...Dafar has what to offer Canada, Rwanda, next to nothing should we cross them off the list of future missions...

A single terrorist attack that has cost the lives of over 30 Canadian civilians, a single attack that we have spent bils into increasing our security...and how has it effected our personal lifes, at the borders, airports, ports etc etc...

Our security is so lack ,,,still after the bils...that anyone with some planning and organization could be a threat to us...I mean had all those attacks suceeded they could have crippled the US econemy, defense, and our country is tied to thiers in every aspect....what could they have done with 20 airplanes...

I understand your personal stake and emotional involvement, but I'm trying to come at this as dispassionatly as I can, which, IMO, is the only way to appraoch questions of natonal interest and foreign policy. (BTW, I find the idea of "projecting Canadian values" to be a bit odd, given that if you asked a dozen Canadians to define "Canadian values" you'd end up with 12 diferent and contradictory examples!)

Ok i'll take a step back, Right now if all the facts pionted to Afgan being a waste of time, resources and lifes, i'd be the first to be beating that drum, get me out of here...but our nation has decided it's size of it's military and how much we are going to spend on aid and right now we can only do one mission at a time....it makes sense to stay here finish this job and get it right the first time. instead of hopping around the world trying to put out spot fires...let the americans do that, besides we don't have the resources or should i say the military because we have lots of resources we just squander them....

I had to chuckle about the values remark because it's true. But i'd like to think that Canadians have alot of good values worth contributing to other nations. Is it our job to do so NO, but i do think we have some responsiabilty as one of the worlds leading nations to ensure a better future not only for our next generation but to all future generations.

I don't think the armed forces is the best way to deliver humanitarian services (though I acknowledge that Canadians are probably better at it than most).

I agree it's not the best way, but it is the way of the future...alot of relief agencies refuse to go into the places we go into...trust me if i had a choice i would not travel there either....is it worth it, every trip ...

and we will get better at it...because we have to...

[PolyNewbie]

Who is responsible for sending troops to war? Is sending troops to war the best possible support ?

When they talk of war should we all get behind them to support the troops or should we criticise the war to make sure it comes under scrutiny so that we meet our responsibilities as the people who send them to war ?

I believe this war is not being fought on anyones behalf but the criminals that have infiltrated our peoples government.

Should they be fighting a drug war and helping the drug barons increase their output ?

Should they be fighting to put war criminals and drug barons into power ?

Does the pipline work in our interests or just in the interest of its investors ?

I say Let The Banks & IMF Fight Their Own Wars

[Black Dog]

Quick points for AG:

We do have a bench mark, it's to bring peace and stability to thier country and to assist them in the rebuilding process. how long that will take i have no idea, how long were we in Cyprus, bosina, more than 10 years minimum...

That's no a benchmark, that's a end goal. Benchmarks are how you measure your progress. And stability is such a broad term. Afghanistan was stable under the Taliban, no?

Let me ask you the same question, how much is your freedom and your rights worth to you...and how much would you allow your government to spend on keeping them....How much of our current surplus would you allow our government to grant Afgan this gift...

Again we are asking what does afgan have to offer in return...does there have to be a return before we decide to take action...Dafar has what to offer Canada, Rwanda, next to nothing should we cross them off the list of future missions...

A single terrorist attack that has cost the lives of over 30 Canadian civilians, a single attack that we have spent bils into increasing our security...and how has it effected our personal lifes, at the borders, airports, ports etc etc...

Our security is so lack ,,,still after the bils...that anyone with some planning and organization could be a threat to us...I mean had all those attacks suceeded they could have crippled the US econemy, defense, and our country is tied to thiers in every aspect....what could they have done with 20 airplanes...

Hey, wouldn't it then make more sense to take the money we're spending on Afghanistan (much of which is going into the pockets of drug dealers, warlords and other scoundrels) and spend it on beefing up our security at home?

But if the point is to neutralize threats from abroad befor ethey emerge by restoring stability, then places like Darfur would be great places to start. Going into Afghanistan post 9-11 is like closing the barn door after the horse has left.

[Figleaf]

Did you fail to understand the questions?

What's the strategy? How will we know we are succeeding? What are the milestones? When will it finish?

And let me add another ... why should we do it?

To answer your questions again.......

Whats the strategy?

Strategy is to help keep Afghanistan secure and from tearing itself apart while the country grows into a new DEMOCRATIC nation, which we will help to influence while we are there. I think Canadian values are pretty good gift to the Afghanis.

Ummm... that's not a strategy, it's a goal. A strategy is the method and plan for attaining the goal.

What are the milestones?

Milestones will be created by the people on the frontlines who know how to determine what the goals should be and how quickly they can be achieved and not by a bunch people sitting around their computers making their own political statements.

So, what are the milestones?

When will it finish?

Who knows, there is no scientific formula.

How will we know when it's finished?

And let me add another ... why should we do it?

You let cancer go untreated and the cancer grows and thats why WE SHOULD DO IT !!!

No, sorry, I guess I'm not being clear. I mean: Why should it be us who does it?

[Figleaf]

You see, freedom means the Afghanis are free to choose whichever government they want, and not be oppressed by the Taliban.

What if they elect the Taliban in an election? (And before people scoff, consider Palestine and Algeria which both elected Islamist governments that the west didn't like.)